RE: Speaking of New Features

From: Powell, Mark D <>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:47:21 -0400
Message-ID: <>

Well, the suggested syntax below would make matching up a long column list to the provided values/variables a lot easier and would likely help prevent listing 100 columns to be inserted but only including 99 variables in the values list. I think I would require the use of the correct column name instead of any type of positional col-n style labeling.  
  • Mark D Powell -- Phone (313) 592-5148

[] On Behalf Of Jared Still

	Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:04 PM
	Cc: oracle-l
	Subject: Re: Speaking of New Features
	Very Perlish. 
	 I like it.  :)
	Jared Still
	Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
	On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:37 PM, chet justice

<> wrote:

                Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?                 

		INSERT INTO my_table 
		  ( id => seq.nexval, 
		    create_date => SYSDATE, 
		    update_date => SYSDATE, 
		    col1 => 'A', 
		    col2 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col3 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col4 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col5 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col6 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col7 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col8 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col9 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col10 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col11 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col12 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col13 => 'SOMETHING', 
		    col14 => 'SOMETHING' );
		Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make human
readable) someone else's code. I would either get too many values or not enough. After copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named notation?                 

                Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix here
<> if you are
inclined to, one way or another, to vote.                 


		chet justice

Received on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 12:47:21 CDT

Original text of this message